Europe’s antitrust enforcers have doled out multibillion euro fines, politicians have questioned whether tech companies pay their fair share in tax, and lawmakers have raised increasingly uncomfortable questions about social media’s role in elections worldwide. It would be little wonder, then, if Facebook, Google and Amazon were ending 2017 with their reputations far more tarnished than when the year started.

And yet, there’s no sign that anything like that has happened.

Policymakers in Brussels, Washington and elsewhere have been busy ratcheting up the rhetoric (and, increasingly, fines) against many of the tech giants. But the majority of people who use their services — not to mention the global investors who buy and sell their shares — have responded with a collective digital shrug.

The stock prices of Alphabet (the parent company of Google), Amazon and Apple continue to hit all-time highs, making them some of the world’s most valuable companies. And the public still prefers these digital brands to the lawmakers trying to bring them to heel (and, yes, that includes Margrethe Vestager, the European Commission’s competition czar who has become the face of much of the global regulatory pushback against Big Tech).

The inability of regulators to curb either the economic or social clout of these digital companies doesn’t mean that Big Tech got its way all year.

Poll after poll shows that while people are beginning to grow wary of the tech giants’ dominant (and, increasingly, entrenched) positions, they still feel they get more from the digital world than it takes from them.

A recent survey by the European Commission found that two-thirds of Europeans believe that technology has a positive impact on the quality of their lives. They felt the same about tech’s role within the wider society, according to the region-wide poll.

Those are significantly higher percentages than you might expect from a Continent that’s positioning itself as the world’s digital policeman. And it’s a reminder that while European policymakers might see the latest digital gadget or service as a potential privacy infringement or competition issue, most consumers view it as something else: a shiny piece of new technology that makes their lives easier or more fun.

Companies like Google and Facebook have built up their dominant positions through an uncanny ability to get consumers to trust them | Stephen Lam/Getty Images

The inability of regulators to curb either the economic or social clout of these digital companies doesn’t mean that Big Tech got its way all year. Nor does it suggest that politicians have been off the mark when pursuing cases against companies whose practices sailed too close to the wind.

But as policymakers look to 2018 — and a number of potential regulatory fights await, including antitrust, privacy and tax cases — it’s worth asking if they have the right tools to address inappropriate behavior on the part of Big Tech.

Facebook, for instance, was fined three times this year in Europe (€110 million by the European Commission, €1.2 million by Spain’s privacy watchdog and €150,000 by the French data protection authority) for different regulatory missteps; the social network is appealing the Spanish and French decisions.

But for a tech company that pocketed $4.7 billion in quarterly profit in just the three months ending September 30, these fines are a mere rounding error to the company’s accounts, not a serious financial threat to make executives and engineers think twice before acting.

This lopsided situation, at least when it comes to privacy concerns, will be addressed next year through a revamp of Europe’s data protection rules that take effect in May. The changes — known collectively as the General Data Protection Regulation, or GDPR — will allow European authorities to fine companies that flout national privacy laws €20 million or up to 4 percent of global revenue, whichever is higher.

It’s a testament to the potential power of these beefed-up penalties that companies like Google and Facebook are rushing to comply with the region’s data protection standards, arguably some of the toughest rules anywhere in the world.

Tech firms (and non-tech companies, too) have hired, collectively, thousands of new lawyers and coders to revamp how they handle people’s personal data, fearful that one misstep could lead to hefty fines that would force even the most laid-back investor to do a double take.

And yet, it’ll take more than fines to change the public’s perception of these digital giants, especially as people still view them mostly as a benign, if not beneficial, presence in their daily lives.

So far, fears about Big Tech’s role in society have failed to break through in a meaningful way to most of the billions of people who use these digital services.

Companies like Google and Facebook have built up their dominant positions not just through world-leading coding and (sometimes) cut-throat business practices. They’ve also done it through an uncanny ability to get consumers to trust them — often with the most personal data about themselves.

But as the recent fake news and election interfering scandals on both sides of the Atlantic have shown, that trust can be quickly lost.

More than half of Americans, for example, now don’t trust social networking companies or the government to prevent foreign entities from manipulating elections, according to a poll by Axios, a news organization. Just over 50 percent of respondents also felt that social media does more to harm than help democracy.

That’s the major risk confronting Big Tech as 2017 comes to a close.

So far, fears about Big Tech’s role in society have failed to break through in a meaningful way to most of the billions of people who use these digital services around the globe.

But if the digital giants’ growing number of missteps continue to erode consumer trust, the slow drip of anger and frustration aimed at Big Tech by the few could easily (and quickly) turn into a tidal wave of accusations by the many.

good article! but there is something slightly misleading about it.. namely it conflates big tech (as in: the industry giants) with technology in general in the eurobarometer poll they cite.. views of how technology impacted their lives are positive. people weren t asked how they feel about tech companies..
also the fact that people use them doesn t mean they like it, often people don t have much of a choice

Posted on 12/11/17 | 6:42 AM CET

freddie silver

Who dares criticize big tech when you know that they will know and can screw up your computer in an instant.

Posted on 12/11/17 | 8:05 AM CET

edel

There are multiple dimensions to the potential problem, individual protection is only one of them. It is hard to explain it all, but let me put a few scenarios:

Espionage. Just by analyzing metadata (let’s no even count they are processing email content), it is very easy taht for companies of national interest (lets say Boeing), the US for instance is analyzing how Airbus frequency of emails with certain governments indicate a potential deal. This can potentially be used for stock privilege trading.

Competition. Companies like Amazon and Google are collecting such amount of data that for decades to come will have a huge competitive advantage over any competitor, like economies of scale was no bad enough for competition. For the economists reading this, these companies should be treated as natural monopolies when legislating them.

National Security. Google has the power to understand better than any government in the world the connections of individuals and institutions. It is very easy for the USA to use that info to disconnect the leadership of any government, let’s no mention the whereabouts of each of the leaders. Let’s remember, Google, Facebook etc are under the US jurisdiction so they have to comply to any federal request. When, for instance, UK or Germany have a request, it is only given for punctual info on an individual and that is it, US can request all, even from foreign countries.

Yes, most people are not concerned, because they think that as long as they don’t get caught in embarrassing selfies they will be fine. No so, photos is the least of the problems; rapid concentration of oligopolies, together with huge advantages on data of certain countries (actually only one!) over other ones are what we really should be concerned about. Tobacco and lead in paint were not a concern for citizens decades ago either… until they learned about its dangers. The EU has been very naive and permissive with the potential pitfalls of technology, let alone educating people on them.

Posted on 12/11/17 | 9:49 AM CET

doug perry

Valkiria

POLAND: The government of M. Morawiecki was established. The entire reconstruction consisted in the change of the prime minister. Morawiecki took over the helm of Prime Minister B. Szydło, who became the minister in the new government. The minister became prime minister and the prime minister became minister. In a similar way to Russia, where Prime Minister Putin swapped positions with President Medvedev. President PiS Kaczyński oversees the promise of a “new” government. Why was this change in the post of prime minister? This is Kaczyński’s cynical plan in the fight against Brussels. Morawiecki is to expend the most from the EU budget for 2020-2025. From how much money you can get from the EU, PiS is in power or not. Morawiecki will be like Szydło as the executor of Kaczyński’s orders. The new Prime Minister moves much better internationally, but he will not change his policy inside the country and will not return to the path of liberal democracy and the rule of law. Can Europe be fooled by Kaczyński, will he be firm and put an end to the violation of EU values? It is in Brussels that we should decide whether European countries are saving Poland and the EU or will they allow a dictatorship in Poland? If Europe wants to respect the rule of law, it must use the “atomic option”. The suspension of direct subsidies for agriculture and all funds as well as suspension of Poland’s membership in the EU will end the dictatorship in Poland. Will Hungary make a veto? Hungary and Poland are the same issues so you can combine these two countries in one vote just as they were combined when the European Commission set them before the Tribunal on the refusal to accept refugees.

Posted on 12/11/17 | 7:28 PM CET

MLB

Everybody I know do not see them “especially as people still view them mostly as a benign, if not beneficial, presence in their daily lives.”
Yes they are beneficial, However BENIGN I have not meet anyone who thought that and their reputation is Bad nobody trust companies anymore because time and time again, they try exploiting its customers.